As part of my Pool of Plenty project ( if you want to know more about that one please check the post on the ePlaya here:
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic.php?t=38225) I started a blog, which would not only show the development of the project, but more importantly, would serve as an information- and discussion-platform about the value of Art and Money.

And since today sees the first post on the Art-As-Money blog that covers Burning Man I thought I'd post this in a separate thread .
It's not meant to trigger discussion about Burning Man and Paul Addis (I have the feeling most has been said and done about that already), but meant to take a closer look at the value of art, which is made to be destroyed in the first place, but then gets destroyed by someone else...........

Dadara, your apparent understanding of the Addis incident and vandalism at Burning Man in general, based on how you frame it here and on your blog, is so extremely naive I'd be willing to pay you ten bucks not to show up.

Bob wrote:Dadara, your apparent understanding of the Addis incident and vandalism at Burning Man in general, based on how you frame it here and on your blog, is so extremely naive I'd be willing to pay you ten bucks not to show up.

The main reason I used the Addis incident on this blog which deals with the value of art and money, is that vandalism of art always gets looked at in a financial light? 'How much financial damage was done?'

But what was the REAL damage done?

And I feel the way it was handled only dealt with the financial aspect: 'He caused more than thirty thousand bucks in damage, so let's put him in jail.' End of story.

I know vandalism at Burning Man is an increasing problem and maybe BM could have used this incident to make the community more aware of that.

I also enclosed some pics of projects I brought from overseas in the past decade (and as you've probably read in the post I am working very hard on a new one), mainly to illustrate the fact that I think that paying me ten bucks not to show up because of a post on a blog might be equally naive

For me it's actually Dreamyourtopia: Since I don't live in the States this is one of the few ways to reach out to the BM community and let them know about my new Dream.

And those ten bucks in Snarkatopia that 'Larry pays every year not to bring my 350-foot Black Dick project to fruition' could in Dreamyourtopia help my fundraising to make this new Dream become a Reality............

Sorry, I'm still saving up to buy 350 yards of black Pleather and a few tanks of helium.

I figure the true cost (or value, as you put it) of actions such as Addis' is in weeding out people who don't like their art suddenly devalued by premature burning, theft, etc., such as has happened with some of my friends who no longer do anything at Burning Man. I believe Addis' argument was that as artist/participant he was as entitled as anyone to dispose of art at the event as he saw fit, despite the most basic ethic of Burning Man being not interfering in the immediate experience of other participants -- eg setting fire to their art over their heads. Of course the org ironically keeps spending money on people who could never possibly pay the true costs of their participation, and cooking the books, so don't look too hard at the afterburn calculations.

Bob wrote:I figure the true cost (or value, as you put it) of actions such as Addis' is in weeding out people who don't like their art suddenly devalued by premature burning, theft, etc., such as has happened with some of my friends who no longer do anything at Burning Man. I believe Addis' argument was that as artist/participant he was as entitled as anyone to dispose of art at the event as he saw fit, despite the most basic ethic of Burning Man being not interfering in the immediate experience of other participants -- eg setting fire to their art over their heads.

Indeed

The Lady with a Lamprey

"The powerful are exploiting people, art and ideas, and this leads to us plebes debating how to best ration ice.Man, no wonder they always win....." Lonesomebri

Had a girl join us at our burn barrels last year trying to claim that their art project was worth $3 million. I will not name the project, but she based her claim on the labor involved, the supposed stature of the artists and the quality of the art.

I however contested that her art had very little value beyond material costs and what the market demanded. The time contributed by the volunteer artists did not in any form equate to a 1 to 1 exchange in real dollar value. And the market certainly wouldn't bear purchasing her piece for that price. Furthermore her entire evaluation was based on the "replacement cost, should it be damaged in shipping" for insurance purposes.

Her "insurance argument" really bothered me. It seemed almost as if she would have preferred her art to have been damaged or destroyed as to collect a pay day from it.

So, what is the value of the man? Does it end up being the gross revenue of the festival? Is it the cost of material? Do the volunteer man hours factor into that? Do any of us care?

Or,....

If Banksy tagged the man on Friday do you think the org would still burn it?

Rambling, yes,.... Find something properly snarky to say. Or give some heavy idealogical argument refuting something I just said or answering one of my questions.

Ohh, one more question. What does contemplating the value of art and money achieve?

(30k seems like a fair value for the repairs. I find the whole thing hilarious, minus the length of the prison term for our unnamed misguided faux high minded prankster)

(oooh, edit,... instead of prison we should have just burnt his house down a couple days before a planned move. HILARIOUS)

fbcota wrote:Ohh, one more question. What does contemplating the value of art and money achieve?

I am glad I am not the only sophomore at an over-priced, New England all-women's college (I wish)..........

Anyway.

The reason I think it makes sense to think about the value of art is that in our society everything seems to be judged by its financial value alone. And it also seems that something that according to me has mainly other values (spiritual, social, philosophical etc) is difficult to handle.The result is that art is being judged increasingly by its financial worth.

fbcota wrote:If Banksy tagged the man on Friday do you think the org would still burn it?

The org flew Banksy out to tag the back wall of the Cafe back in 2001 (see here).

After the event, nobody wanted souvenirs, and a fellow Brit with DPW, who built the Cafe and wasn't exactly enamoured with the tagging, burned every trace of it. Pity, because it was half-decent plywood.

The fact that whats his name tried to burn down Grace Cathedral after his little burning man stunt, clearly shows he's an attention whore. I prefer not to think about the little shit, rather the miracle that DPW pulled out of their ass, after the premature ejaculation.

TomServo wrote:The fact that whats his name tried to burn down Grace Cathedral after his little burning man stunt, clearly shows he's an attention whore.

Not if he's seriously mentally ill. Well, I suppose he could still be an "attention whore" but that's very possibly a manifestation of illness rather than basic character. (Basic character gets hidden under layers of all sorts of "off-ness" in cases of serious mental illness.)
Teh problem of calling someone who is mentally ill an "attention whore" is that it minimizes the problem and makes someone who might respond well to treatment and basically become someone who can contribute to his "communities" and keeps him as an ass hanging around their necks. (Sorry, Da Mule.) And $30,000 could have bought a lot of medical treatment. Not to mention that court costs and prison costs and...

The Lady with a Lamprey

"The powerful are exploiting people, art and ideas, and this leads to us plebes debating how to best ration ice.Man, no wonder they always win....." Lonesomebri

TomServo wrote:The fact that whats his name tried to burn down Grace Cathedral after his little burning man stunt, clearly shows he's an attention whore.

Not if he's seriously mentally ill. Well, I suppose he could still be an "attention whore" but that's very possibly a manifestation of illness rather than basic character. (Basic character gets hidden under layers of all sorts of "off-ness" in cases of serious mental illness.)Teh problem of calling someone who is mentally ill an "attention whore" is that it minimizes the problem and makes someone who might respond well to treatment and basically become someone who can contribute to his "communities" and keeps him as an ass hanging around their necks. (Sorry, Da Mule.) And $30,000 could have bought a lot of medical treatment. Not to mention that court costs and prison costs and...

Mentally ill or not, he used his soapbox. Would you excuse Hitler for using his soapbox? my apologies! I hate it when people compare others to hitler,but....

TomServo wrote:The fact that whats his name tried to burn down Grace Cathedral after his little burning man stunt, clearly shows he's an attention whore.

Not if he's seriously mentally ill. Well, I suppose he could still be an "attention whore" but that's very possibly a manifestation of illness rather than basic character. (Basic character gets hidden under layers of all sorts of "off-ness" in cases of serious mental illness.)Teh problem of calling someone who is mentally ill an "attention whore" is that it minimizes the problem and makes someone who might respond well to treatment and basically become someone who can contribute to his "communities" and keeps him as an ass hanging around their necks. (Sorry, Da Mule.) And $30,000 could have bought a lot of medical treatment. Not to mention that court costs and prison costs and...

Mentally ill or not, he used his soapbox. Would you excuse Hitler for using his soapbox? my apologies! I hate it when people compare others to hitler,but....